The Times credits massive fundraising by Obama - and Republican voter discontent over Michael Steele - for the difference.

I'm not convinced that's the case here.

Oh, Obama's raising cash. That part's correct. And Republican voters are discontent, that's also correct. But the idea that they're still irritated over Michael Steele? I don't think so... (Well, maybe they are. I just don't see that as the money problem.)

So what's going on?

I think Republican voters learned an important, albeit painful, lesson about the National Party in 2010 - starting with Charlie Crist. Also, let's not forget Newt Gingrich's candidate Dede Scozzafava. How about Arlen Specter?

Time and again, despite actual conservative candidates with grassroots support, the Republican establishment has chosen to ignore the will of the voters (read: DONORS, you fools) in favor of keeping it all in the club. And finally, it got to be more than non-establishment types could bear.

Michelle Malkin has multiple archived posts (in her link style: here, here, here, here, and here) demonstrating exactly how previous donors reacted to solicitations from the RNC. Some of those are hilarious, you should check 'em out. RS McCain has also covered the grassroots dissent, and linked the "Not One Red Cent" movement.

So now we have another Presidential election on the horizon... What'll happen? Will there be empty coffers for Republican candidates? Have the conservative voters disengaged?

No.

But they've learned.

They aren't going to send hard-earned money to a National Party that is more concerned with itself than the country or the voters. They're going to wait... choose their candidate... and send the cash directly to those campaigns.

I think it's a good thing. Let the Republican Party as an entity get a little taste of how the free market works. Maybe they'll learn a lesson, just like their voters have - the hard way.